[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.175.236. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
February 7, 1925

INTRADERMAL VACCINATION

Author Affiliations

Berkeley, Calif. Associate Professor of Epidemiology, University of California.

JAMA. 1925;84(6):462. doi:10.1001/jama.1925.02660320054031

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor:  —In a reply to an inquiry regarding intradermal vaccination (The Journal, January 17, p. 223) occurs the sentence, "To class the Force method with the intradermal method is likely to be confusing, for his description of the method used appears to be subcutaneous rather than intracutaneous."I have never published a description of the method used at this university, and I am at a loss to determine on what this opinion is based. Recently I sent a personal communication to Dr. J. C. Geiger of the University of Chicago, giving directions for intradermal vaccination, in which these words occur: "The needle should not enter the subcutaneous tissue, and the bevel should not show through the epidermis. The proper site for an intradermal smallpox vaccination is neither subcutaneous (as in the ordinary hypodermic injection), nor subepidermal (as in the Schick test), but intradermal." I might further amplify this

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×